HC Deb 09 December 1969 vol 793 cc395-404

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Dobson.]

11.18 p.m.

Mr. Brian Parkyn (Bedford)

I wish to bring to the attention of the House the case of a constituent of mine, Mr. Pargan Singh, and I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Minister of State for being here at this late hour to reply on behalf of the Government.

This is a complex affair. I shall attempt to recount the whole story as concisely as I can and hope to justify the grave charges that I shall be making in the course of my speech.

About one in six of the population of Bedford is not English-born, and Mr. Pargan Singh is one of many fellow Indians who live in Bedford. He has lived in this country for 16 years, and with him here are also his wife, two children, sister and mother and father. He is intelligent and hard working, and can speak and write English with some difficulty. Indeed, if there is any mitigating circumstance in this sorry story, it can only be that Mr. Pargan Singh's command of English is such that he could be easily misunderstood.

On 28th May this year Mr. Pargan Singh travelled from Bedford to London Airport, Heathrow, with his family to meet his brother, Mr. Ajit Singh, who had arrived from India by flight M.S.779 at 2.40 p.m. Mr. Ajit Singh had a return ticket, and had only come over to visit his brother, mother and father for a few weeks and was then proposing to return to India, where he runs a small farm. Mr. Ajit Singh also has a wife and three children in India.

Mr. Ajit Singh was detained by immigration officials for questioning and Mr. Pargan Singh was, in the meantime, seen by a clean shaven man of 20 to 30. Mr. Pargan Singh told me, "I was treated rather roughly and not even addressed as 'Mr'. I was told that I was lying and that my brother is coming here for good." He was even told that Ajit was not his brother. He was told to fetch his bank book, and so he travelled back to Bedford, found his bank book, and returned to London Airport at about 9 p.m. He was then seen by another immi- gration officer, who was fairer, and who had a beard, and who said that his brother could not recognise him. When he asked why, he was told that Ajit had been shown another man and he had said, "Yes, that is my brother." Mr. Pargan Singh considers that they were deliberately trying to bluff him.

The bearded official then examined the bank book and told him to go home and fetch his Post Office Savings Book and bring it back the next day. They said that they were holding Mr. Ajit Singh in the detention office, but that if they were satisfied with the Post Office Savings Book they would allow Ajit to return with him and remain in this country for this short visit. Mr. Pargan Singh was told to return to Heathrow at about lunch time on the 29th. He then made a request to see his brother. The request was granted, though his wife, two children, and sister had to remain outside.

Mr. Pargan Singh returned from Bedford to London Airport on the following day and arrived at the office at about 12 o'clock. He was told to sit down and that somebody would soon see him. At about half-past one or a quarter to two somebody came in, looked at his Post Office Savings Book, and said, "I am sorry. Your brother is going back today at 3.30 p.m."

I should now like to quote briefly from a short statement that Mr. Singh gave me: I asked the reason, he told me his income in India is not sufficient. Then I told him that I would like to see the solicitor of the Home Office. He told me you can see anyone you like, we don't care. In a short time I dashed to the welfare immigration office and I had to ask them could they stop my brother go back at 3.30 or get in touch with any solicitor who could do that. There was one Indian man, one Indian woman, and one Englishman. The Englishman tried to telephone. The Indian woman was very helpful and tried to tell the Englishman, couldn't he try to stop this man's brother going. In the meantime he was ringing somebody. From the other side he asked 'how long has he been in this office.' he said only a few months, since January. I think the man at the other end of the telephone then said, 'I think then that you are not very experienced.' I asked the welfare officer whether I could see my brother again, but he said, No it's too late'. Mr. Pargan Singh told me that he had a letter from his brother in which he said that they told him, "Your brother and mother and father are outside. We are taking you to see him." But instead of letting the brother see them he was taken to the aeroplane.

Soon after this took place Mr. Pargan Singh told me all about this, and I put the facts before the Under-Secretary of State. In a letter to me of 30th June lie said that in view of discrepancies in replies to questions put both to Mr. Pargan Singh and Mr. Ajit Singh the immigration officer had concluded that there had been a deliberate attempt to mislead him, and he felt that he could put no reliance on Mr. Ajit Singh's statement that he had come here for a visit only, and so permission was refused.

The principal points of disagreement were as follows: Ajit Singh said that he wanted to visit his brother for 22 days, but his brother, when questioned, asked for a permit for his brother for three months. Ajit Singh told the immigration officer that the income from his farm was about £1,200 a year. On being re-interviewed he said that his income was nearer £500 a year. Finally, Mr. Ajit Singh told the immigration officer that he had not met his brother for 16 years, when his brother had visited him in India seven years ago. This was clearly a misunderstanding over the fact that Mr. Pargan Singh had left India 16 years ago to live in this country and had then returned to India seven years ago on a visit.

In my view these discrepancies are so minor as to be irrelevant when seen against the background of language difficulties and the all too common nervousness which we all experience when confronted by immigration officials.

I cannot believe that the decision to send Mr. Ajit Singh to India on a flight at 3.30 p.m. was taken only at about 145 the same afternoon. If it had been made earlier, why was my constituent asked to travel all the way back to Bedford to fetch his Post Office Savings Book? We know that the immigration officers must have a difficult time in administering the laws which we make in this House, but in this case, and perhaps others, they assume that a man is guilty, and telling lies, unless he can prove otherwise. This is not the kind of English justice which people throughout the world expect to find here.

Of course, my constituent could be telling lies. I believe that he is telling the truth, and his story certainly has the clear ring of truth about it. Hon. Members gain considerable experience in assessing people, and I would not present this case here if I did not believe fully in the bona fide of Mr. Pargan Singh, whom I have interviewed carefully on three occasions. Mr. Pargan Singh is an Indian-born British citizen who has made this country his home for 16 years. He is a part of the happy multi-racial society that we have in Bedford, which I have the honour to represent in this House.

I must therefore demand for him the same social justice and elementary rights as belong to all our people. I would ask my hon. Friend to do two things. First, I ask her to provide a return ticket, at public expense, to enable Mr. Ajit Singh to visit his brother and relatives in this country, and, second, I ask her to give an apology to my constituent for his treatment at Heathrow on 28th and 29th May when, to use his own words "they treated me like a dog."

11.27 p.m.

The Minister of State, Home Office (Mrs. Shirley Williams)

First, I apologise to my hon. Friend for the absence of my hon. Friend the Joint Under-Secretary, who is unable to be present owing to illness. He wishes me to tender his apologies to my hon. Friend. Second, I thank my hon. Friend for the very reasonable way in which he put his case.

Before turning to the particular case concerning Mr. Pargan Singh, I would like to say a little about the operation of the immigration control into this country. Last year nearly 4 million aliens and some 500,000 Commonwealth citizens were admitted to this country in one capacity or another. It would be surprising if there were not an occasional complaint that an immigration officer had acted in a high-handed fashion.

The number of complaints is very small in proportion to the numbers of alien and Commonwealth citizens admitted. I do not think that I can begin my reply better than to quote the remarks in the report of the Committee on Immigration Appeals under Sir Roy Wilson, which is the report that led to the Immigration Appeals Act 1969. The committee says: The impression we have received in the course of our inquiry is that, generally speaking, immigration officers act with fairness and respect for the rights and feelings of other people with whom they have to deal. In questioning people about their intentions and family circumstances, the officers are only carrying out duties laid on them by Parliament. They have to be on the watch for deliberate attempts to evade the control …". I must pause here because it is the need for immigration officers to be on the watch for deliberate attempts to evade the control which explains why they sometimes act as they do.

In the case in question Mr. Ajit Singh sought admission to visit his brother, Mr. Pargan Singh. Before going into details, let me quote from the Instructions to Immigration Officers on the admission of Commonwealth Visitors, which say: If a Commonwealth citizen satisfies the immigration officer that he is coming as a visitor for a limited period and can support himself and his dependants during that period, he and they should be admitted. Other genuine visitors, for example those coming to stay with relatives, should be readily admitted unless the immigration officer has reason to believe that their presence in the United Kingdom is likely to result in a charge on public funds. The two points that the immigration officer has primarily to look for are, first, "Is the Commonwealth citizen a genuine visitor?" and, second, "Will he leave at the end of his permitted stay?". Finally: "Can he support himself or has he a sponsor who can support him while here?".

Unfortunately, we have some experience of Commonwealth citizens and aliens who claim to be visitors when really their intention is to stay in the United Kingdom permanently. If, therefore, after examining the passenger the immigration officer is not satisfied that he will leave the United Kingdom at the end of his visit it is his duty to refuse admission.

As my hon. Friend has said, Mr. Ajit Singh, who has a wife and three children in India, arrived at London Airport on 28th May and told the immigration officer that he wanted to stay for 22 days to visit his brother Mr. Pargan Singh. Mr. Ajit Singh said that he earned about £1,200 a year as a farmer. However, Mr. Pargan Singh, who was at the airport to meet his brother as his sponsor, told the immigration officer that his brother would be staying three months. On being re-interviewed, the following day, Mr. Ajit Singh agreed that his income was nearer £500 than £1,200 a year.

There were several discrepancies here. Moreover, it seemed improbable that a man with a wife and three children to support should spend something like half his annual income on an airline ticket if he were coming on a visit of only three weeks.

The immigration officer came to the conclusion that there had been an attempt to mislead him and felt that he could place no reliance on Mr. Ajit Singh's statement that he had come here for a visit only. After reference to a chief immigration officer, he consequently refused admission to Mr. Ajit Singh, who was then detained to await his return to India.

I would now like to deal with some specific complaints made by Mr. Pargan Singh, which my hon. Friend has raised quite reasonably and of which he has kindly given me advance notice. The first complaint is that Mr. Pargan Singh was asked on the evening of 28th May to produce evidence of his ability to support his brother. He says that the immigration officer promised that if this were satisfactory his brother would be admitted. We have had inquiries made but can find no grounds for thinking that such a promise was given.

Secondly, Mr. Pargan Singh complains that his wife and children were not allowed to visit his brother. We have been told that it was at 9 p.m. on 28th May that Mr. Pargan Singh and two of his cousins asked the immigration officer to be allowed to see Mr. Ajit Singh. They were given a written authority for a visit to give to the detention officer. Visitors are not allowed to see detainees without a written authority. If on arrival at the detention block they had asked whether Mr. Pargan Singh's wife and children could also see Mr. Ajit Singh, they would have been told that they could do so if they obtained a written authority from the immigration officer.

Thirdly, Mr. Pargan Singh complains that when he returned on 29th May with evidence of means of support he was kept waiting for an hour and a half or more. I have not been able to verify this, but if he was kept waiting for a while at a busy airport before he could be attended to, my hon. Friend would, no doubt, agree that this was, perhaps, understandable. I hope that my hon. Friend will understand that this was not deliberate and can sometimes happen on such occasions.

Fourthly, Mr. Pargan Singh claims that he had little opportunity to seek aid in presenting his case. The Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants was able to discuss the matter with him, however, and on taking it up with the immigration authorities the council was given details of the case and the reasons for refusal.

Fifthly, Mr. Pargan Singh says that he was not allowed to see his brother again before the latter was taken to the aeroplane returning him to India, and that later he had a letter in which his brother wrote that he was told that he was going to see his relatives but instead was taken to the aeroplane.

When refusal of admission is confirmed, the pattern is for the immigration officer to hand over the Commonwealth citizen an official of Securicor for safeguard pending his removal. At 2.20 p.m on 29th May Mr. Ajit Singh was taken to Terminal 3 by a Securicor official, and at 4.25 p.m. this official reported that he had left and that there had been no unusual incidents.

It is normal practice to allow relatives to see persons detained pending removal provided that this does not delay removal. If the relatives had asked to see Mr. Ajit Singh before his removal, the Securicor official would have reported this to the immigration staff for approval. There no evidence that such a request was received from Mr. Ajit Singh's relatives, nor is there a clear answer to his claim that he was told that he was being taken to see his relatives but instead was taken to the aeroplane. It is possible that he may have been confused owing to language difficulties, or there may be some other explanation, but I cannot offer one.

Mr. Pargan Singh lists three "reasons" which, he says, were those given by the immigration officer to the officer of the Joint Council for the Welfare of Immigrants for sending Mr. Ajit Singh back. What is listed are some of the discrepancies which I mentioned earlier which led the immigration officer to the conclusion that Mr. Ajit Singh was not a genuine visitor. This was the reason for refusing him admission.

Mr. Parkyn

That is precisely the point that I was trying to make. Those three reasons concerning discrepancies are so minor as to indicate, to me at least, that the immigration officials are clutching at a straw to justify the conclusions which they had already reached at the outset.

Mrs. Williams

I appreciate my hon. Friend's feelings about this, but I can only repeat to him that very few genuine visitors to this country—that is, Commonwealth citizens—are stopped from entering. Therefore, this case must have been an exceptional one because it fell into that very small minority group of individual citizens who are refused entry.

I can only underline to my hon. Friend that the discrepancy about income, particularly the large slice of it that the ticket comprised of Mr. Ajit Singh's income, led the immigration officers to suspect his real motives for coming to this country.

I will deal with two other points. The evidence that Mr. Pargan Singh supplied was perfectly fair evidence of his ability to support his brother but it did not touch then on the three "reasons" for refusal. The reasons were the immigration officer's belief that Mr. Ajit Singh was not coming for purposes other than of settlement.

Finally, Mr. Pargan Singh says that he was treated discourteously, even to the extent of the immigration officer telling him that Mr. Ajit Singh was not his brother since he could not identify him and had identified someone else as his brother.

I am told that Mr. Pargan Singh was treated courteously at all times, and understand that he himself refers to the fact that Mr. Ajit Singh jumped up when an Indian arrival having no connection with the case entered the detention area but he realised his mistake when the other party did not respond.

I have tried to deal with my hon. Friend's constituent's points as fully as I can. I hope I have disposed of most of them. I appreciate Mr. Pargan Singh's unhappiness when his brother was refused admission, but I hope my hon. Friend will agree that the behaviour of the immigration staff concerned was correct and that their decision was justified and based on what they felt to be good reasons.

If Mr. Ajit Singh should wish to come to the United Kingdom again, I would strongly recommend him to apply to the British High Commission in New Delhi for an entry certificate so that the question of his admission can be fully gone into before he leaves India.

There are two points I should like to make in conclusion. First, while immigration officers have to be on their guard against bogus visitors, the very great majority of Commonwealth visitors are admitted without difficulty or delay at the ports. This is as true of Indians or Pakistanis as it is of Australians or New Zealanders. The numbers of refusals are a very small percentage of the total.

Second, the Immigration Appeals Act provides for there to be a right of appeal against refusal of admission in just such cases as my hon. Friend has described. The Government have not yet announced a date for the introduction of the appeal system, but we are pushing forward with our preparations as rapidly as possible, and recruiting the necessary staff. An advisory and welfare service to help passengers who are in difficulties, not least as a result of unfamiliarity with the English language, is to be part of the new arrangements.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at twenty-three minutes to Twelve o'clock.